Digitally 2026:CGHC:15196 signed by SHAYNA NAFR KADRI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3029 of 2020

1 - Munni Soni W/o Krishna Dutt Soni Aged About 71 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Near Thana, Manendragarh, Tehsil- Manendragarh, District-

Korea, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Village Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Additional Collector, Manendragarh District Koriya, Chhattisgarh

3 - Tehsildar, Manendragarh District Koriya

4 - Kamta Prasad Soni S/o Shree Bhagwandeen Soni, R/o Ward No. 11, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh

5 - Awadhsharan Soni S/o Ramsakha Soni, R/o Ward No. 11, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh

6 - Pramod Soni S/o Shree Krishna Soni, R/o Ward No. 11, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Caust-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Ms. Tanusha Pathak, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

Order on Board

02/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“1. To quash and set aside the order dated 04/09/2020 (Annexure P/4) passed by Learned Additional Collector Manendragarh.

2. To direct the respondent authority to expeditiously decide the Petitioner's application for grant of lease in revenue proceedings bearing registration 30/A-

20(1)/2019-20.

3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an encroachment proceeding was initiated as early as in the year 1983 against respondent Nos. 4 and 5, wherein an order for removal of encroachment was passed against the said private respondents. However, the said order was never implemented by the revenue authorities for reasons best known to them, and the encroachment continued to subsist on the land in question. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1986–87, he had applied for grant of patta over the Nazul land, and pursuant thereto, patta was granted in his favour in respect of Plot No. 3/1 admeasuring 390 square feet situated at Manendragarh (hereinafter referred to as the “disputed land”) in revenue proceedings bearing Registration No. 03/A-20(1)/1986-87. However, the original records pertaining to the said proceedings were subsequently lost, for which action was also initiated against the concerned officials. Despite loss of records, the petitioner claims to have remained in continuous possession of the disputed land since then. Subsequently, alleging illegal encroachment over the disputed land by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Tehsildar, Manendragarh, which was registered as Revenue Case No. 01/A-68/2017-18. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the private respondents filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking deletion of the petitioner from the array of parties. The learned Tehsildar, vide order dated 22.10.2018, allowed the said application and removed the petitioner from the proceedings on the ground that the land in question is Nazul land and the State Government is the necessary party, not the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Additional Collector. However, the revisional authority, vide order dated 04.09.2020, dismissed the revision petition without proper application of mind, merely affirming the reasoning of the Tehsildar. It is further stated that prior to this, the petitioner had approached this Court, which vide order dated 30.07.2019 in WP